BOSTON — Good government advocates are renewing a push to make permanent pandemic-related rules temporarily authorizing remote meetings for local governing boards, but the move faces opposition from cities and towns which argue they shouldn’t be required to provide virtual participation.
On Monday a coalition of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause Massachusetts and the New England Newspaper & Press Association, urged lawmakers to act on a bill that would require cities and towns to provide options for officials and members of the public to attend meetings in person or remotely.
Temporary rules adopted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic allowed local governing boards — as well as the state Legislature — to meet remotely to conduct business as part of broader efforts to reduce the spread of the virus.
Those emergency rules expired with the state’s public health emergency, but lawmakers extended the temporary law allowing remote local meetings and public participation. It’s set to expire next year.
“The countdown is on: If lawmakers don’t act this session, people with disabilities or other reasons they can’t attend meetings will be completely shut out when city councils, select boards, or school committees decide to hold meetings exclusively in person,” the groups wrote in a joint statement.
“Accessibility makes our democracy stronger, and we can’t afford to close the door on these perspectives and communities,” they said.
The proposal is one of several bills in the current session they call for making hybrid and remote meetings permanent.
Lawmakers are considering the changes as part of the so-called Municipal Empowerment Act, filed by Gov. Maura Healey in January.
The legislation, which is being considered by the Legislature’s Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government, would make permanent other pandemic-era policies like authorizing restaurants to offer outdoor dining and selling to-go cocktails with takeout food.
But the coalition is criticizing Healey’s proposal, saying it would give cities and towns the discretion to offer remote or hybrid meeting access but not require it, which “would surely limit the public’s ability to participate.”
“By contrast, the Legislature has embraced hybrid access for public hearings and other events, demonstrating the feasibility and importance of the coalition’s proposed reforms to the Open Meeting Law,” the groups said.
The move to make remote meetings permanent is backed by the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which argues that local governing boards in some cities and towns have not only adapted to remote meetings but found that they increase public participation. The group wants to extend the rules to town meetings and other local governing functions.
“There are a number of municipalities already successfully utilizing remote participation,” Adam Chapdelaine, the association’s executive director, said in recent testimony. “We strongly support changes for towns to have a permanent option to conduct remote town meetings, and that this authority also be extended to open town meeting communities.”
Communities want the flexibility to continue to offer remote access — but not be mandated to do so, according to Chapdelaine. There are more than 10,000 local governing boards in the state, ranging from city councils to planning and zoning boards. The decision to offer remote meetings is often based on public interest, access to technology, staff, space and other factors, he said.
“Each city and town has dozens of boards, councils and commissions which hold numerous meetings a year and often simultaneously,” Chapdelaine said.
“These municipalities continue to find the meeting mechanisms that work best for their residents, and making these flexibilities permanent will help ensure they continue to do so.”
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at [email protected].
By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter
Source link
